Your children was right here. Good evening everyone. This is the city council work meeting. The date is June 15, 2026 and the time is 6:41 p.m. This meeting has been duly advertised in
the city newspapers. In conformance with the open public meetings act, otherwise known as the sunshine law. Roll call, please. >> Pomona, >> present. >> Blayisby, >> present. That is
>> Gibson >> present. >> Thomas >> present. For the record, Councilwoman Swepson and Council Barkley will not be here this evening. May I have approved for the previous minutes? >> Second.
>> All in favor? Madam clerk, >> first agenda which will be moved to the end of the meeting but during work session is going to be the hearing on the temporary merkantile license suspension for Redtown
Hometown liquor store. just session. >> May I have a motion >> to move it to the um number 131? I have a second in favor.
Uh resolution 121 revoking the merkantile license and hometown liquor schools. >> Any questions? Council seeing none. >> Resol ordinance number six advertising amendment to the city code at part-time
assessor. I mean any questions council seeing none >> resolution 122 authorizing appointment of Richard Hashimi as tax assessor. >> Any questions?
Seeing none. >> Resolution 123 authorizing payment to surf for limited services provided to the recreation departments for restoration project. >> Any questions? See none.
>> Resolution 1 to24 authorizing acceptance and implementation of the corrective action plan approved by the state controller office. Any questions council? Seeing none. >> Resolution 125 authorizing a notice to proceed to CME Associates for
engineering service for Lorraine Avenue improvement project in amount of $16,500. >> Any questions? Council seeing none >> resolution 126 authorizing a notice to proceed to CME Associates for
engineering service for the third street improvements project in amount of $50,000. >> Any questions seeing none >> resolution 127 approving the renewal plary retail consumption look licenses for the 2026 and 2027 term.
>> Any questions council? See none. Resolution 128 approving the renewal of plenary retail distribution liquid license for the 26 to 27th term. >> Any questions council? Seeing none. >> Resolution 29 board and Karen Upshaw as
fund commissioner and Shalana Stewart as alternate fund commissioner for the city. >> Any questions council? See n >> resolution 30 introducing the 5026 budget for the city. >> Any questions council? N
>> resolution 131 authorizing personnel transactions for the city. >> Any questions? >> Next is review of the bill list. >> What do you hear? >> Um the first
there's two. There is a check register and purchase order listing. I will let you review quickly the um check register. Uh it's page one and uh we have paid to ACUA for our trash
service uh pickup and recycling in the amount of $269,000 962.81. Uh, does anyone have any other questions on that check register? >> Yes. Is this for the 2026
>> or 2021? >> 2026. >> Okay. Yes. >> So, we're up to date now. >> Well, we're pretty much up to date with them because remember that the 20 one of the years 2024 was deferred into
this year, right? So I believe that the monthly payment for that amount is like about 17 ounces of dollars. Yes. >> So now we move on to the open excuse me the purchase order
listing on page one. There is a purchase order for Pel Electric for $14,000 and that is for the lighting on Main Street. Is this >> not this one? Oh, no.
>> Did they finish? >> I They're working on it. That's all I know. They I don't think they have fully completed uh the lighting because the lightings have um is uh from dust to
dawn the light and that's >> so so they're waiting for that to come in. >> Yes. >> Then on >> Excuse me. Would this be the final paper for that? >> Um I believe so. >> We I haven't received anything from
public works if there's anything to be amended for this. Then we have the Atlantic City Electric that's covering all our streets um and some of our buildings. And we're looking at $41,960.74. Page three.
We're looking at a parking tire and that's to keep up with our vehicles and our tires for um public works, the police, and other city vehicles. Uh it's $3,967.
Even if we turn over to page four, uh we're looking at Universe and uh these are maintenance towards the public works and uh other departments they're uniform uh
maintenance and so you see that there's various there. So we're looking at $1,500 to $1,600 payment. page five. If you go on to the bottom, second one
at the bottom, it is Atlantic Prevention Resources for $5,547 93. This is grant monies. This is uh from the Atlanta County Municipal Drug Alliance and uh these are programs that they do
throughout the year. Okay, we look at page six and uh this is you look at the second line uh it's 31,000 for our auditors and that's they um put together the debt
service the AFS they're starting to get into the audit now and that's um I think about half or just a a little bit under 50% of their payment. That is $31,000. Does anyone have any questions on the
purchase order listing report? >> Thank you. You're welcome. >> Mayor, do you have anything? >> Thank you. We have a motion to adjourn the board session. >> Well, before we um council is watching.
>> Yeah. Want to find out when we're going to get the lines on Avenue, the stop stop lines and uh Le Avenue also when the lines going to be found there and also the bike pass. >> Right. No, it's a great question. Uh
thanks. Just as an update for uh all council, um public works has gotten the approval for everything. You don't know who's going to do the work. That's all set. The issue right now is the time that they come out and do it. They won't provide the paint truck to do the one
street. So they're going to do them all along with the Franklin Boulevard project. So it's all going to be done at the same time. They're going to do Franklin Le and the other uh streets that you mentioned as one project. >> Thank you. Council president go back to uh resolution 131
um recreation. >> Uh I'm not in agreement with that because I know the amount needs to be changed because we said that it wasn't right but it went higher and part of the time the recreation director was there. She was there part of the time for that
were not to be no one to have had to sit in for her number one. And then um >> so how long was the um director out there >> exactly? I don't know. I don't know. But I do know that she was at she was in on some of the meetings, >> you know, and there would have been no
reason for anyone to, you know, to fill in for her. The other thing is um with the recreation center being closed, we have less activities there now than we've ever had and I just don't know how much more you know how much more the program
coordinator is doing that was taken up for the recreation director. So yes um so uh to your point mayor I I you know do you agree um I think we all did um it was looked at but there was a discrepancy in the actual contract
contract spell one way and our understanding of that contract was a little bit different. I did get clarification from our our clerk which uh thank you uh for stepping up and um and kind of filling in blanks because she was part of the original negotiation
of that contract. Um we did get the union on the phone. We spoke uh through this whole process with the union. Um and we came with a compromised number. That number represents her stepping up into the position only 40% of the time
that she was uh working here. So then pay her for the full time, you know, that she was out. They paid her um as if she spent 40% of her time doing the job. >> So it also was brought to the committee that um they had to give you all a list
of all the duties that was done. ghost list. Sorry, that list was also presented to the union and that's how they determined that it was 45% of the looked at um the superintendent actually did um the real discrepancy the contract
will be worked out so that it spells it out a lot better. It's the wording in the contract that made it confusing, but we got to the bottom of it. Um the spirit of the contract's always the most important thing in this particular case. the union um explained what the spirit
of the contract was supposed to represent and it was supported by Miss King's action involved with that negotiation. So I mean I think I'm on a good record that this was presented to us as a
>> correct >> which had to be negotiated >> so that there was an adjustment to the original claim that >> that's correct
to address the mayor's concern. >> So this came in as a grievance. >> Yes. Yeah, >> that's why the union is involved. >> Now, I knew the union was because we had mentioned the union the first time we discussed it, but then when the amount went up so much more and I was just
wondering because I did hear someone say about the duties, what was there that many more duties that was being performed? >> Well, remember when it was presented to us, it was either 1,500 or the 6% which whichever one was greater.
I believe whatever was here was incorrect. >> So that number should have been $5,000, but we had to negotiate that. >> This number should have been 5,000. >> That's what >> that that would have been%. >> No. So the 6%
>> the 6% um or 15% was never in the contract. It was mentioned, but it was never in the contract. what's in the contract is that she would make what the person above her needs. So her salary would have been, you know, at $36 an
hour as opposed to I'm sorry, 40 hours opposed to her just getting 60%. So once the union expressed, you know, how that, you know, the spirit of that contract was supposed to read, they came out with a new number and negotiated down.
motion to >> close to in favor. >> Good evening everyone. This is the city council meeting. Today is June the 15, 2026. This is 26 and the time is 6:56
p.m. This meeting has been dyed in the city newspapers in conformance with the Open Public Meetings Act, otherwise known as the Sunshine Law. Please stand for invocation and flag salute.
We tres to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Clay
>> status >> present. >> Swepson >> Gibson >> present. >> Thomas >> present. May I have a motion to dispense previous minutes? >> Motion. >> Have a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Mayor, you have anything for this
evening? I do not. >> Next, we have a public portion. We have Mr. Craig. Is it council? >> Good evening. >> Good evening, good evening, council. Um,
I represent a group of people from Oakland Avenue. I've been living down here. I live at 329 Oakland. I've been living down here 5 years. We've had nothing but issues with her road. Uh, Robert, I have talked to you once. You were kind enough to return my call once.
Um, over 5 years. I had trouble getting any type of feedback whatsoever. We do appreciate the fact that you guys have helped us down there. um you have got loads of dirt down there which unfortunately is not the right material to bring down because our road gets
flooded about you know three times a month and the dirt just goes away. Last week even came down and spread about seven loads of dirt. Uh it rained twice. The it's no longer there. Um also the other issue with that road is that some
of the black top is completely torn up. It's not a safe road. Anybody in the township that has driven down that road knows it's not a safe road. It is destroying our vehicles and all that. So, we're asking on guidance what can be done. We believe there was a a program
back in 2017, a study done that we live in a um a zone that's flooded that's considered flooded and it's well documented. Nothing has been done based on that uh report that was done in 2017
uh by an engineering firm that the township hired and we're looking for some relief on the road possibly having gravel put down instead of dirt. Uh the gravel would stay on the road to flooded and then there's like one tenth of a
part of the road that the asphalt is completely wiped out. There's bumps all over. any township employee that's been down there off the record would say the road is not, you know, drivable. Like I said, Robert was kind enough to get back to me and let me, you know, some type of
stuff. We represent probably about 15 20 people. Um, there's other issues like the after Sandy there is drainage ditches that were put in long long time ago that actually drain when the high tide comes. But unfortunately after
Sandy that those drainage issues were not cleaned up. So the water cannot get out and that's why it sats all over the place. So we're asking for some guidance and some assistance on one getting that road where it's drivable. The other
issue we we're asking is that you know it floods all the time. So that's why the gravel would be very um well done after 5 years been living down there and watching guys create dirt. You spread it out and do it good. And two days later, it's gone because of the rain and and
the high tide. And I know you can't do anything about the high tide. It is what it is. But we need assistance on there because we can't even drive. That's all we got to talk get out of here because it's high tide tonight and it's going to be about a foot of water on the road. So, we won't be able to get back to our
homes if we don't get out of here by 7:30 or so. The other question we have is what's going on with the marina. Um, we all have votes and we'd like to use the marina. Last year they closed it down. We cannot get an answer on what the problem is and when it's going to be
fixed. So, those are some concerns we have. We tried to go the proper way. Now, we're going to start voicing our opinion, what we need to have. So, if you guys could kind of like look at our the situation down in Oakland Avenue, uh, we really would appreciate it. you
know, we really having trouble. The cars are getting destroyed. It's very I can't even bring my boat down to my house because I can't get down the road. It's, you know, it's up and down. There's potholes. Uh Robert knows he's been down there. Um so any assistance you can give
us, we really would appreciate it. We don't want to become a pain in the backside, but we have to just like everybody else, we're capable of doing that. So, we prefer to work with you guys and and try to get the things resolved so we can drive down our street without our cars being broken and and
problems with that. Uh the flood's going to take a while, but there is a a report that you guys have from 2017. If you don't have it, we'll be more than happy to give you report. was paid by um the township of um you know Pleasantville and it brings all the problems with the
drainage and everything that the EPA and the D have figured out and and make recommendations. There should have been a bulkhead put up. No bulkhead has been done. But just the channels being cleaned out would solve a lot of the our problem with flooding. So again, we just
want to, you know, let you know that we're here. Um we don't want to keep coming back, but if we have to, we will. So any help you can give us we really would appreciate. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Um >> yes, could you over the issue?
>> Absolutely. >> First of all, thank you. Um thank you. >> No problem. >> I must say >> I must say that we we really appreciate um your approach uh to the city. Um it's
respectful. That's more than I can say for some of the residents on that street where comments were made that I will not repeat today but that were extremely disrespectful. Um please understand that we're trying I mean I I've met with Blue
Acres and Green Acres and had multiple discussions with them about since you and I spoke about how we can help. Um the dirt was supposed to serve as a a um a patch for right now. Um but the gravel was illegal for us to place. So we can't
you know do gravel we attempted. >> I know. But you've already done set five years of putting dirt down there. The cost of the dirt would definitely >> absolutely >> you know gravel would have been you know eventually you're going to have to do it. >> They're not allowing us to use gravel in
in the city of Pleasant. We can't we we're told we can't do ground. We tried >> but we can't do it. Yeah, we cannot do gravel in the city. Um >> as far as it being u black top I we can't do that until like you said we remediate
>> just that one right have to remediate. No, I know exactly what you're talking about and you're 100% right. I mean like you and I have had a lengthy conversation about this. So, you did prepare me with a lot of information and I just want you to know that >> we're working on it diligently because
that's part of the >> master plan for the marina area. >> Lastly, the marina, we've identified the funds, right? Remember, it was money first, right? We identified the funds, we secured the funds, and now we're just waiting for the company to come and do it. The company's uh every company that
we've talked to is backed up, opening up other >> have to hire another company. >> Yes. No, we we're looking. We're looking. And if you have a company, feel free to give me a call tomorrow. Tell me that you have because we're just trying to get somebody to come and do it. So, we want to get it open just as bad as you want it open. But, we do have some
really big plans for the marina. Um, and some great stuff that you're going to, you know, really be excited about. We just got >> Yeah, the plans have been going on for many years, as you well know. And um >> you know all we're asking is that sometime in the next couple years we get
this mass it's been going on not one year two three president you can't have conversations going on >> okay >> from the audience like this back >> okay >> just I'll make a note just to bring it back to committee so you all can just
absolutely >> well we're ready just for Thank you, Mr. Fred. Um, next we have Andy Allen. >> I thought I was just signing in to attend a meeting. Uh, I also represent that section of the
road and um I haven't been as vocal about my concerns, I guess, but my biggest concern is is my particular house. it it sits lower and I guess originally years ago the uh asphalt or
the concrete driveway was above the the level of the road but over 20 years of laying down top soil it's it's now over that so my my whole driveway becomes a swimming pool even when it rains and it just creates a muddy mess so I just you
know just that out there thank you very much thank you >> we We have is it Diana? >> Okay. So, next we have Rosson. >> Good afternoon.
>> Good afternoon. >> I live in 10 Avenue and I'm asking the same thing as my neighbors and the road from the school to the end is crazy. just I've been there five years too and nobody came and then I don't know if you
can give us another meeting so we can talk because I gathered a few other neighbors they could not come today but if you guys give us a time um we will be joining and then I I hope you can listen
for our needs. >> Thank you. Next we have Mr. Good evening everyone. How are you? >> Good afternoon. >> Good. Good. I've been visiting grandchildren. That's why I haven't been around.
But I did have some questions for the agenda. Okay. um for number six. Um when I attended the um Pleasantville
school board meeting the other night, I learned about the fire at the rec center. When was that fire? Was it last year? Was it >> this year? This year? What? January. >> Yes. >> Okay. So then my question is I know that there are no summer programs there this
year because of the state of the building and I see that you're going to be approving uh service pro for tonight and and my question is we can get to it later. I have a few questions. What took so long for us to clean the building up
such that it impacted the summer youth program? So that was the question that I and the next question was the very next one underneath um for the implementation of the corrective action plan and I wanted to
know um because I know that the controllers's office comes up with issues uh when they do uh their audit. Uh how many items were they and are these just the regular items that they normally or does it appear to be more
this year than previous years? >> Okay. >> So um this is called specifically as it relates to the corrective action plan. This is not based on a specific audit that's annually undertaken. This is
relative to a complaint that was made to the office of waste control and fall back about 2024 and they investigated in 2025. It was a public document. It had a finding that there were certain things that um were
not fiscally sound. Um wasn't the worst report, but they did ask that we submit to them a corrective action plan, recoup certain monies that were paid to certain people which we had undertaken. Okay. >> And many of the items we've already implemented and in fact were
implementing it before the state issued its findings. >> Okay. >> Since then, we submitted the corrective action plan to the state, they approved it >> and because things were already transpiring, this is simply to formalize before council, okay, that which has
already been accepted by the state. >> Okay. So it's it's really an overall and it's really it's actually going to be really good and the things that are being made just better checks and balances as well as fiscal constraints. >> I I guess I thought this was the um
>> state audit the regular audit from the uh the accountants that come look at that >> with DC. >> Okay. So um >> thank you since you brought up about >> Yes. No, go ahead. You have a question.
>> Uh, yes. It was a piggyback question since you brought up about what has happened previously. We know that money didn't go out to a previous employee and they're in the process of paying those. Uh, is that something that's working
out? Are they in fact paying the money back consistently? >> Well, whatever the arrangement is. >> Well, so this this is a public filing. There was a public filing. Um, court did um enter a decision
>> on behalf of the city, right? >> Um and we are now in process of remediation. >> Okay. >> And that's actually taking place next week. >> Okay. Very good. Very good. >> And the last thing I just didn't know 131 authorizing personnel transactions.
What does that mean? >> Oh, that you're looking at >> that's just the personel agenda. I'll be talking. >> Okay. All right. That's all. Then that's all that's all I have. Thank you. And if I can just get
>> um uh an answer to your question about rec center um the the delay was the insurance company sending us a check. So you know it took us about three months to get the check from the insurance company and then we were uh forced to have to go out to bid. Um we
did find a way around it to get things open. Uh we actually used a uh co-op. So it's being done now. Um all the work's being done now and we should be done hopefully by the end of this month. >> We have the summer camp. >> Thank you.
>> Next we have M. Williams. I love my young 13y old street. Just want to say thank you for with the seniors to go see Michael. wonderful opportunity and I'm grateful to your resident and that being open to
the seniors to be able to do that at a wonderful time and I just want to say thank you for that. Also, where are we with the paving of the streets in Pleasantville? Are we anywhere or are we I know at one point we were starting
down that way down this way but we have no P. Also down the side of my house it's supposed to be a street. It is grass. There is property in the back that is not being maintained. I have
brought it up and they cut it but beyond that it's nothing but trees. Okay, I'm giving clean my portion up. This is supposed to be a street. It's not a street. It's grass. So, I just want to
know what's going on with that. >> So, um that issue, we can bring it up. So, is that your committee? >> So, they'll bring it up in their um committee. >> Okay. And um you had the other question was the streets >> sidewalk
>> paving paving the streets like they started on Park Avenue. Park Avenue is halfway done. Park Avenue where the where y'all get ready do that building. That street when you come around that corner from the graveyard on back it's
mess. You're going to do something. You have a grant for that building that y'all took over. >> And I believe that we also have grant to fix that tree as well. >> Okay. And that would help the rest of the streets close enough. >> So I guess is there a list
>> that people >> Okay. So y'all working on >> All right. All right. >> But um Councilman can follow up with you. >> Okay. All right. >> M. >> Yes. The street that you referenced the
side of your house, has it ever been paid? >> It's an old alley. What you call unimproved right? I was raised right there in that block. >> But it was a house back there. >> Yeah. >> When I moved in, there was houses.
>> Even I uh so that is probably going to be last one. This I can't speak Mr. our home. >> But ever since I can remember when I was 5 years old
that that was grass. >> I'm sure he will. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> May I have a motion to close public portion? May have a second. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> Okay. So, we have move the hearing to the end. We're at number item number two. I'm sorry, number three, which is ordinance number six, authorizing an amendment to the code adding a part-time assessor. I have a motion. >> May I have a second?
>> Call. >> Yes. >> Clay, I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Dennis, >> yes. >> Gibson, >> yes. Thomas. >> Yes. >> Ordinance has moved a second reading. Adoption date is July the 6. Next we
have resolution 122 authorizing appointment of Richard Bashimi as tax assessor. >> Have a motion. >> Motion. >> We have a second. >> Roller. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Gibson. >> Yes. >> Hollers. >> Yes. >> Resolution approved. Resolution 123. to authorize independent to serve pro for limited services provided to the recreation department's restoration program. >> May I have a motion? >> Motion.
>> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Ma, >> yes. >> Hold. >> Yes. >> Bettis, >> yes. >> Gibson, >> yes. >> No. Resolution. Resolution 124 authorizing
acceptance and implementation of corrective action plan approved by the state >> control office. I have a >> motion motion. I have a >> second call. >> Fon, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Travis,
>> yes. >> Gibson, >> yes. >> Thomas, >> yes. >> Resolution approved. Resolution 145 authorizing a notice to proceed to CME Associates for engineering service for the Lorraine Avenue improvement project
in the amount of $16,500. May >> I have a motion? >> Motion. >> May I have a second? >> Second. Roll call. >> Kimona. >> Yes. >> Ogresby, >> yes. >> Pettis, >> yes. >> Gibson, >> yes. >> Thomas, >> yes.
>> Resolution approved. Resolution 126. Authorize a notice to proceed to CME Associates for engineering service for the third street improvement project in an amount of $50,000. May >> I have a motion? >> Motion. >> I have a second. >> Second. >> Roll call.
>> Pomona? >> Yes. >> Ogusby? >> Yes. >> Mattis? >> Yes. >> Gibson? >> Yes. >> Thomas? >> Yes. >> Resolution approved. Resolution 127 approving the renewal of plenary retail consumption liquor licenses for the 26
through 27 term. >> May I have a motion? >> Motion. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Kimono, >> yes. >> Overby, >> yes. >> Gibson, >> yes. >> Bettis, >> yes. >> Thomas,
>> yes. >> Resolution approved. Resolution 128 approving the renewal of plenary retail distribution liquid license for the 26 through 27 term. May >> I have a motion? >> Motion. >> May I have a second? >> Second.
>> Roll call. >> Kimona. >> Yes. >> Ogusby. >> Yes. >> Pettis. >> No. >> Gibson, >> yes. >> Thomas, >> yes. >> Resolution approved. Resolution 129,
important carrot of Shaw as fund commissioner and Shalana Stewart as alternate fund commissioner for the city. May >> I have a motion? >> Motion. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Kimona. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Pettis? >> Yes. >> Gibson? >> Yes. >> Thomas? >> Yes. >> Resolution approved. Resolution 130, introducing the 2026 budget for the city. May I have a motion? >> Motion. >> May I have a second? >> Second.
>> Roll call. >> Pimona? >> Yes. >> Agusby? >> Yes. >> Mattis? >> Yes. >> Gibson? >> Yes. >> Thomas? >> Yes. >> Resolution approved. Resolution 131 authorizing personnel transactions in
the city for June 26, 2026 would consist of new hires in the code enforcement as well as public works and a title pay for personnel and recreation and change
of title for personnel and a resignation for police department. >> I have a motion. >> Motion. >> May I have a second? >> Second. Roll call. >> Pomona. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Bettis, >> yes.
>> Gibson, >> yes. >> Thomas, >> yes. >> Resolution approved. Next, I need a motion for the bill list. >> May I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Kimona,
>> yes. >> Oldby, >> yes. >> Pettis, >> yes. >> Gibson, >> yes. >> Thomas, >> yes. Motion approved. Last, I need a motion to approve bingo and raffle licenses. >> Motion
roll. >> Kimona, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Gibson, >> yes. >> Thomas, >> yes. >> Motion to approve. >> We'll go to um the hearing.
Anyone have a comment, concern, issue, anything? >> I just like to thank everyone for coming out and um invite you all June 26, the late stage, we're having a gospel uh
jazz concert at 6 o' 6 to 8. So on the calendar, >> can we take a um a 10 minute break? This is a >> stamp. >> I mean, I'll stick to the disability. >> No, no, it's not that except because it
has it has the numbers there. Okay. Um, if the if we could have a little bit of quiet here. Thank you. Um, if the clerk would put on the record the case. Okay. We're here for the hearing of the
temporary uh mercantile license suspension of application for merkantile license 158, better known as Hometown Liquor Store. >> Uh, good evening. Uh Tracy Cosby on behalf of the city
>> for the record members of council president membersh on behalf there on behalf of the merkantile lency hometown LLC. >> What's your last name? >> Reapp. It's re e a l e sir.
>> Not real. >> No >> real. >> Okay. >> Got changed but not that much. But that's it. >> Must have been all somebody's shorting it somewhere. >> So I'm just going to give a very brief
opening. Um this matter comes before this body um as a temporary suspension of the Merkantile license of Hometown Liquors Merkantile License number 158. they were entitled to a hearing uh
within uh 30 days, which is why the hearing was scheduled today as to whether or not um the license should continue to be suspended and or revoked. Um this arises out of um array
essentially by the police uh where they confiscated suspected controlled dangerous substance um and uh other uh paraphernalia andor um monies that arose out of a search warrant that was
authorized by the uh judge of the superior court. Um, my position is to present the proofs and the testimony of the witnesses. Um, my witnesses that I'll be calling will be Denise Scott as
well as uh, Sergeant Matthew Lielli. Um at the conclusion you will have an opportunity to deliberate council for hometown will have an opportunity to uh cross-examine and or um present his own
case as well as um open and provide you with a summation at the end at the conclusion of the uh the city's case and chief and you will make the ultimate decision on uh what should uh be the uh
disposition position of hometown liquor. Mia, >> thank you. Um, Madam President, members of council, yes, we are here for a hearing tonight. The question is is what type of hearing are we going to have under your
ordinance? It's one of the strange ordinances I've seen quite honest with you. And it says something like this. It says, well, if somebody thinks there's something wrong, I'm talking about 1505 misqued 155-6D says immediate suspension. This is
notwithstanding the above provisions, any activity at the licensed premises which results in an arrest, I'm paraphrasing, for an indictable offense for such conduct at the licensed premises shall be reason to immediately suspend the license a hearing, which as
your council suggests has to be within 30 days. Problem is is that there's no prior review of that by you. It is essentially operating on somebody else's dime if you would. Uh here nothing more than a probable cause
finding by a superior court judge by way of the search warrant and there's no right of due process that's been preserved for the LE but I mean in this in that type of procedure. So, we get this charge and and I think
it's important that we remember exactly what the allegation is and that's by a letter dated and signed by Miss Scott um on May 25th wherein she writes uh that the hearing is for the unauthorized
sale of suspected marijuana in violation of section 1551685. Then that letter includes language as it relates to that particular sess session which reads again as least as an pertinent part in an unlawful manner or
in a manner that constitutes a breach of the peace or a menace to the public health safety or general welfare. Now here in lies part of the procedural issues that I think exist with respect to this hearing that I think the record needs to be clear about.
If you're going to establish unlawful conduct, there has to be testimony to that effect. Here, the allegation is one of possession of marijuana in violation of the most recent change of the law at 2C35-10
F4, I think it is, as it relates to THCA and THC products. And there's a weight that's assigned in that statute by which above that is illegal, under that is not legal. So you have this problem of how are you going
to establish it if you don't offer testimony as to the unlawful conduct because only unlawful conduct as it relates to this particular charge could also be a matter that breaches the peace or constitutes a threat to public
health, welfare, and safety. So, we asked for production of the materials and we were not provided any reports. We were provided copies of complaints. >> Council, I'm going this is No, I'm going to object because this is an opening statement. You want to make this a
procedural hearing or challenge. That's different because now you're making putting me in a position to rebut what you're saying. You either have an opening which goes to the merits of the defense of your matter or that's your closing statement. is not applicable for an opening because now you're trying to
tell them what's wrong with the ordinance. This is your opportunity to to have your your opening on the merits of your defense. So then I will basically take exception and we'll we'll have a rebuttal to your opening which is not typically what transpires.
>> Here's the dilemma with that and I appreciate your solicitor. >> So it's for the record, right? It's preserved for the record. >> For the record. But here's the dilemma. The dilemma is that there's no thanks.
There's no evidence. If there is, it hasn't been provided to the workman pile ly. Don't how is it to defend? You don't have any evidence to justify a particular action at this time. You may in the future if
there's a criminal conviction, you clearly have authority, but you wouldn't even have to take an action because this is a licensed premises under liquor laws. If there's a conviction, there has to be a devestature.
This hearing and in fact the suspension of a license and the threat of revocation is premature. And the fact that Miss Cosby stood up indicates one of the other particular problems we have in this proceeding. And the record needs to understand this.
Most times, not always, but most times when governing bodies have these, you have your municipal prosecute present the case. Here, your solicitor is serving both functions. That's conflict. My suggestion is that the evidence, you
have no evidence. You're not going to hear anything by way of evidence that justifies action at this point. The license should be returned. You should monitor this. Your police will be monitoring it in the context of the interaction with the prosecutor's office. And if and when there's a
conviction for a disqualifying crime, you won't even need to take action. Title 33 of the ABC law, intoxicating liquors in New Jersey, will act as an operational law to revoke the license being held. That is
my open >> and I I appreciate that because you've given your challenge on the record and I think that to the extent that it's not quite an opening on the defense um in your case, but it certainly is apppropo if you are challenging the process and
because you are challenging the process then I'm duty bound to respond accordingly. So, we're here specifically to answer the question as to whether or not the owner of Hometown Liquors has violated the Merkantile license. The
Merkantile license was given to him um through an application process. There's no constitutional right to be able to open a business in Pleasantville. You must be able to go through a check. You must be able to perform properly. You
must be able to submit to the ordinance which was published which is available for every business that wants to do business in Pleasantville. You have to go through a background check. So there are hurdles. It is not simply the right to possess property. This is a
merkantile license that is based on being able to submit an application, pay a fee, and be awarded it. He was awarded it. He understood that he was going to do business with the city of Pleasantville and that he had to abide by the municipal ordinance. Whether or
not there is a premature aspect to the suspension, that's not for you to decide. It's certainly not for me to argue here today because this is what has transpired. And frankly, Mr. Real as well as his client
have waved any challenge as far as I'm concerned by presenting themselves here to this. They could have gone to court in an order to show cause to try to prevent this matter from going forward, but instead they came here to present their case. And part of the case, all I've heard thus far would be that it's
premature and that council should not enforce the law because this ordinance is the law. And if this ordinance is invalid, then someone needs to say it is. And it's not me. Not today at least. And while yes, I have to be reasonable.
And while it's my job to be able to look at what the law requires and what is provided, there's been notice given to the applicant. That notice he is supposed to abide by. He knows what he is supposed to do or not do. So it's not about whether or not he's been proven
guilty. This is not a court of criminal jurisdiction. This is not a criminal venue. This is whether or not he has availed himself to the ordinance by having the business, by paying the fees each and every year, by renewing his license each and every year since 2013
or 14, he has submitted to the will of that ordinance. And now, as far as me, the city solicitor prosecuting this case, the city of Pleasantville does not have a prosecutor any longer. And by statute, assuming arguendo that we did,
the prosecutor falls under the municipal attorney's purview. But we don't have a municipal prosecutor. So there is no conflict. We don't have to go out and get special counsel. This is a pre a prepundonderance of the evidence case. That means more likely than not, it is
not clear and convincing evidence. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt. And the purposes for which we are here today is simply whether or not he has violated the mercantile license. The mercantile license that he has that he has been granted and that he has renewed year
after year after year. And I understand the fact that his business has been closed. That's understandable. And he has every right to to to fight and his advocates should advocate on his behalf. I don't blame him for that. This is not personal. This is business. We're all here to do a job. But at the end of the
day, there are facts and there are proof because the standard is set forth in the complaint summon that was issued by the sergeant who investigated this matter. This the plain reading of the ordinance
and the fact that he had a merkantile license. That's it. It's a very narrow scope. We're not talking about the liquor license. We're not talking about whether or not he actually had illegal contraband on his premises. And yes, suspected if it is an arrest on an
indictable offense is sufficient to rise to the level of a prepoundonderance of the evidence of this ordinance. And that's all we're here for today. I'm not going to direct you and council knows that I don't direct you. You know that you will listen to the proofs and
make the decision you want to make. I have two witnesses. I have not been advised that any other witnesses are here on behalf of Hometown Liquor. The fact that they put on the record that they weren't provided with any discovery is a fallacy. I provided them with the
same documents, exhibits one through four that this body was given today. Today, before you came in and was up there or being circulated at the time at which you arrived, he received the exact same thing. That is what the city intends to produce.
I've not received anything reciprocal and that means that they're not going to use anything reciprocal. But I have certainly provided discovery to them. There is a criminal investigation pending and we are not going to infringe or somehow impede on the ability for the police or the prosecutor's office to do
their job as well as the due process of Mr. Brown. So, we are not going to tread into the criminal realm. We're going to stay squarely within that which is confined to the ordinance. If Mr. Rial would like to say something
else, he may. Otherwise, I will call my first witness. >> Well, one comment I'd like to is that we're talking in the context of being able to prove something regardless of the standard of evidence,
whether it be preponderance, clear, convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt. that requires evidence. What you have in front of you are a series of complaints. It's not evidence. >> It's all we need. >> No, no, no, no, no.
>> No, Councilman, >> you know, it's not. Respectfully, sir, it's not all we need because there has to be an ability to know that what's alleged is in fact unlawful. I it doesn't matter how this all shakes
out but at the end of the day there has to be some modicum even in connection with a merkantal license of due process and that's my concern here you is that this governing body with jurisdiction
is exercising that jurisdiction a bit prematurely because the very charge that brings us here requires evidence and probable cause statements. How do you cross-examine a problem posting? If there's a detective or a sergeant that's called, nobody thinks
I'm going to ask about the lab reports. Now, your solicitor says, "Well, we can't go into that because of the criminal case." That's exactly why this is premature. And therein lies, I think, the council's going to call a witness. I
have nothing further to say at this point. We'll hear see how it all shakes. But bottom line is again Stop and think about it as it relates to the due process requirements even in connection with the mer. >> Thank you.
Are you going to stand here? >> Yeah, unless you want to use that for the witness. >> No, I I I'm not going to use it for the witness. I was just curious whether you were going to stand on the whole time. >> I'm comfortable. Unless you all want me to move. I'll move. I'm good.
>> Absolutely. No problem. >> I'd like to call my first witness Denise. All right. Good evening, Miss Would you? >> Yeah. Give me a second. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Your name for the record? >> Denise Scott. Okay. All right. If the court reporter andor the city clerk
would swear her in Can you raise your right hand? Repeat after me. I state your name. >> I Denise Sky >> swear firm >> swear firmly >> that I will tell the whole truth >> that I will tell the whole truth. >> And nothing but the truth.
>> And nothing but the truth. So help me. So help me out. Thank you. >> All right. Good evening, Miss Scott. >> I'm not going to hold you too long. >> Okay. All right. Going to keep your voice up because we are recording from different vantage points. Okay. Um and uh can you just for the record state for
whom you are employed? >> The city of Pleasantville. >> Okay. And what is your position with the city of Pleasantville? >> I'm the deputy clerk. >> And how long have you been the deputy clerk? >> Not yet. >> And what is the uh job responsibilities of the deputy clerk? Um, I assist the clerk. I work with the
ordinances, resolutions, the minutes, open requests, vital statistics. >> Okay. And do you have any type of license as the deputy clerk? >> I have a vital statistics license through the state. >> And is that part of the clerk's office? >> Yes, it is.
>> Okay. And does the deputy clerk uh as is there someone over you other than the clerk? Just the business administrator. >> Between you and the city clerk, is there anyone in between? >> No. >> Okay. Do does that mean that you fill in for the clerk in her absence? >> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. Are you familiar with the uh Merkantile license application process? >> Yes. >> Okay. And um have you um ever become familiar with someone called or a business called Hometown Liquor Store? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, are you familiar with um the
process for businesses applying for a Merkantile license? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. And can you tell the body what the process is? >> They will fill out an application, do a background check, submit ID. Once we get that, we copy it and send it to the
police department. Once the background check is cleared, and all inspections of the building has been passed, they receive a merkantile license. And when they receive the merkantile license, is there a log or something that you enter it into? >> Yes, we enter it into our computer system.
>> Okay. And are they given a number? >> Yes, they are. >> Okay. And how is that number generated? >> It's generated by what number they are when they apply. >> So, it's sequential. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I'm just going to um show you that which has been marked as exhibit
one. Do you have any objections? >> No, I stipulated that. >> Okay. You stipulated to all. You stipulating that I can admit it as evidence. stipulate the the license application as well. License about that. >> Okay. Are you familiar with that document? >> Yes, I am. >> And what is that document?
>> It's the work license for hometown liquor store >> for what year? >> For 2025 into 2026. >> And what is the uh if is there an expiration date on that? >> May 31st, 2026. >> Okay. And is that the date at which it expired? >> Yes.
>> Okay. And um is that a true and exact copy of that which is uh it purports to be? >> Yes. >> Okay. And I'm going to introduce this. I know that this is an informal proceeding but it is nonetheless the proceeding. You already have the exhibits but going to
introduce this into evidence marked as exhibit one. >> I'm sorry. Which number council? >> Exhibit one. Okay. Miss uh Scott, do you recall um
providing um the withdrawn? I'm going to show you that which has been marked as exhibit two. >> Have you ever seen that document before? >> Yes. >> Are you familiar with that document? >> Yes. >> Hey, what is that document? >> It's the mercantile application for
hometown. >> Okay. And uh if you just take a look at that, please go ahead and take a look through it. Tell me whether or not that is u a true and accurate copy of what it purports to be.
>> Yes, it is. >> Propose an objection at this. >> And what is your objection? >> Objection. There's no foundation laid. Miss Scott was employed in the office at the time this application was made. >> Is this document kept in the normal course of business? Yes, it is. Have you ever seen that document before?
>> Yes, I have. >> Have you ever renewed the merkantile license for hometown liquors in the past? >> Yes. >> Okay. And once they have one application, do they need to submit another application if they are paying their licensing fees every year? >> No, they don't.
>> Okay. I think that that's a sufficient foundation. I'm going to move this into evidence as exhibit two. going to ask you to turn to that which has been marked at bait stamp number page number two. Bait stamp two.
And by the way, have you ever seen that particular application before? >> Yes. >> Okay. How long did you say you've been with the city of Pleasantville? >> Nine hours. >> With the city of Pleasantville? >> I'm sorry. 25. >> Okay.
At the bottom of page two, can you does this indicate the type of merkantile? Um the type of business that this merkantile license application is for. >> Yes, it does. >> And what type of business u did they apply for this merkantile license?
>> Liquor store with lottery sales. >> And what type of goods um did they indicate they would be selling? >> Alcohol, beer, cigarettes, soda, bottle, and cigars. >> Is that are those excuse me are those the type of items that they were
approved to sell? >> Yes. Is that the basis for which a merkantile license would be granted based on the application? >> Yes. >> I don't agree that it's leading but it's preserved. >> You have you ever other than this are
you familiar with merkantile license applications? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. And are they required to set forth the type of products that they're going to sell? >> Yes. >> Okay. And if you wanted to determine what type of products they were selling, would you look at their application?
>> Okay. >> It's not leaving, but it's preserved for the record. >> Okay. Um and um is it do you have any personal knowledge of hometown liquors? >> Yes.
>> Are you familiar with the location? >> Yes. >> Okay. And what type of business do you know it to be, if at all? a liquor store. >> Oh, okay. All right. Are you familiar with John? Is the city clerk's office the custodian of records? >> Yes, we are.
>> Okay. And um does the city clerk's office maintain merkantile licenses for uh cannabis businesses? >> Yes, we do. >> Do you maintain a registry for cannabis businesses? >> Yes. And do you know uh whether or not
um Hometown liquor store has a merkantile license for the for a marijuana dispensary? >> No objection as to the relevance. We're not here for that. >> I put my objection on the record.
>> Thank for that. We're here because of an allegation of unlawful conduct on or about May 28th n 2026 dealing with the execution of a search warrant and whether that conduct engaged it was in in fact conduct that was
contrary to the health and general welfare of the community. We're not here about a license application from 2013 or 14. It has no relevance to what we're here for today. So the relevance um your honors is that
this does form the foundation of every other merkantile license that they received which has already been testified to by Miss Scott that they only need to fill out one merkantile license and that every year they're issu application that every year they renew it when they pay their fees. Therefore,
this is the foundation and the basis for which he has been granted a merkantile license. And she's already indicated from exhibit one that it is a liquor store is set forth here in this merkantile license which is was the most recent one. The purposes for which the
question asked about a cannabis license is because this may be a different scenario had it been a cannabis license dispensary. And therefore, you are entitled to know that question. And it is wholly relevant whether or not they have a mercantile license to sell
cannabis. And I think what was the uh the the answer, Miss Scott? >> They do not have a license. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can you please turn to that which has been stamped six in exhibit two?
Is it the standard procedure to have the merkantile license signed by the business owner? >> Yes. >> And is it the standard procedure to have the merkantile license application sorry
application notorized have the signature of the owner notorized? >> Yes. >> Okay. And do you see the name of the owner there? Are you able to make it out? >> Yes. Russell. >> Okay. And is it notorized by notary
public? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Is there any reason to doubt that that is the application was made by Russell Brown? >> No. Okay. Are there two Russell Browns?
Do you know? >> Yes. What's the relationship if you know? >> Father and son. >> Okay. Do are they both affiliated with um Hometown Liquors? >> Yeah. >> They're both owners. >> They're both owners. That's your
knowledge. That's what you think. Okay. All right. >> Okay. Um I'm going to ask you to turn to that which has been marked as bait stamp 13. Do you recognize that document? Yes, I do. Is that your signature at the bottom
of the document? Yes, it is. What is that document? It's a notice of hearing. What's the date of that document? May 25th, 2026, which is a typo. It should be May 28, 2026. >> Okay.
>> And to whom is this letter addressed? to Russell Brown and Russell Brown Jr. >> Okay. And you're the author of this document, correct? >> Correct. >> Is there This is a true and accurate copy of that which it purports to be. >> Yes. >> Okay.
And I I'm I apologize. I think that I missed. To whom is this letter addressed? Russell Brown. Russell Brown Jr. Okay. And what is the purpose of this letter?
to advise them of their um merkantile license being revoked. They may have 30 days to respond or have a hearing. >> So this is a notice of a hearing. >> Yes. >> Is this would you call this a due process notice?
>> Yes. Now, Miss um Scott, I think I just have one more final question for you. Have you had an opportunity to look at the merkantile license? >> Um u the merkantile license uh
ordinance? >> Yes. >> Have you ever seen it before? >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. Um, does the clerk's office maintain the ordinances for the city as well? >> Yes, we do. >> Okay. All right. And, um, are you familiar with any other instances of a
merkantile license um, hearing being held? >> Objection. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Objection. It's not relevant. >> All right. I have no further questions of this witness, but I do reserve the right to recall her, and of course, I have the right to redirect. He's going to probably have some
questions for you, sir. President. >> Yes. >> Hi. >> Hello. >> How are you? >> I just have a couple questions. Um the letter you wrote. >> Who told you to write the letter?
>> I'm sorry. >> Who told you to write the letter? >> We get we write the letters when we get the information from the system. >> Okay. Who gave you the information to write the letter? Objection is a template that I'm sorry.
>> It's a template that we use and we >> I understand the nature of the letter. I'm asking you who gave you the information saying please write the letter. >> The police department. >> Who in the police department? >> I I I'm going to object only to the extent that
you're asking her to say who told you to write a letter. No one had to necessarily tell her to write a letter. She said she was advised by the police department. So I think that it's vague and I think it needs to be rephrased. If you don't understand, you can indicate you don't understand the
question. Again, my comment of the conflict, who specifically contacted you either by phone, in person, or through email saying, "Please write a letter to hometown laborers notifying them of the
hearing. It would be my own sergeant. >> Yes. >> Okay. And what information did he share with you when he contacted you? >> That there was a rage in that business.
>> Okay. >> Did you ask him any questions? >> No, I did not. >> And you just issued the letter. >> Fair enough. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Nothing further. Um, Miss Scott, very quickly, um, you
previously testified that you have been involved in other Merkantile hearings, correct? >> Correct. Okay. Is there a standard by which when the police department um, undertakes criminal investigations or raids of various business or any business that they come to the clerk's
office and advise you of what's transpired? >> Yes. And do you have a procedure in place where you um based on what they've indicated if there's a violation of the mercantile license that it's temporarily suspended on notice to the owner? >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, Mr. or Sergeant um Lyelli didn't have to tell you to write the letter, did he? >> No. >> Did you know to write the letter? >> Yes. >> You knew to write the letter because of the circumstances that you were advised of? >> Yes. >> Okay. I have no further questions.
>> I have two. Uh, Miss Scott, did you memorialize your conversation with the sergeant >> in any form? >> No. >> So, there's no writing of any form that memorializes what the sergeant told you
in that communication? >> No. >> All right. And finally, was the communication in person, by phone, or email? >> By phone. >> Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Um, Miss Scott, you can you can have Thank you so much, but if you just be
kind enough to wait in the back just in case you need to be recalled. All right, Sergeant. >> And how long? >> 14th year. >> And in what department do you work? >> The criminal investigation.
>> Of what department? >> The detective. >> Of what department? >> The police department. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and in the criminal investigation, um, is it unit Fourth division. Second division. Okay. >> In the criminal investigation section, what are some of your primary
responsibilities? >> Rain from homicide, sexual assaults, robberies, burglaries, frauds, narcotics, child abuse. >> And um is this work done um in undercover capacity or is it done um
in uniform reverse? And have you had training in um these type of investigations? >> And can for the benefit of the city council, can you indicate what training if any you've had in criminal investigations with um narcotic rings? I
have been in control investigations investigation drug control for a short period of time. >> Thank you. I'm going to direct your attention to
May 28, 2026. Do you recall participating in a drug raid at the hometown winners at 1000 Black Pike in the city of Pleas? >> Yes, ma'am.
>> And u do you know prior to that whether or not um with your did you ever undertake a search to see whether or not hometown liquors possessed u cannabis license.
>> Yes, ma'am. >> And uh what what sources did you use to determine whether or not they possess the cannabis license? >> The state website. >> And u did you find that they possessed a cannabis license? >> They did not. >> Okay. Um, did you did there come a time
when you sought court intervention relative to hometown liquors at 1,000 Black Force Pipe? >> And what was that court intervention? >> An application for a search warrant. >> Yes, ma'am. >> And what was the underlying purpose of
that search warrant? >> And was that search warrant granted? >> Yes. And and who granted it? >> The spirit. >> And did there come a time when you executed that warrant, that search warrant? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And was that search warrant executed on May 28, 2026?
>> I am going to refer you to that which has been marked as exhibit 3. This is the complaint summons. You be kind enough to take a look at that. Yes, you see your name on that. >> Are you the author of that report or
that complaint? >> Yes, ma'am. >> In the body of that complaint, is there an affidav? >> Did you author that as well? >> Yes. >> Okay. And it's an affidavit essentially under oath. >> Yes. >> Okay. And did you tell the truth when
you wrote that >> to the best of your ability or your knowledge? Was that what you believe to have occurred? >> Yes. It's a summary of Yes. >> That's a summary of what? >> That's uh that that document has been admitted into evidence. Would you be kind enough
to read that after David's proposals? >> Yes, I will. >> And can you keep your voice? On May 28, 2026, Pleas Police Department's detective bureau executed a superior court approved search warrant at 1000 West force Pike hometown liquors reference to an ongoing narve
investigation. Governor Russell P. Brown and Russell P. Brown Jr. were contributing marijuana from their liquor store located in the city of Lville. Undercover officers conducted a control purchases from the establishment. Suspect accepted cash payment and also debit credit card transactions through the business accounts. suspect marijuana
was sent to the New Jersey state lab and provided over uh the legal THC limit for sale without first obtaining a New Jersey cannabis license enforcement. Hometown Liquors is not a licensed cannabis dealer within the city of Pleasurge warrant execution. Approximately $31,000
of currency was frozen in the business accounts. $10,260.31 was currency seized inside of the business. $7,000 in porcado chips and $11,000 of money orders were also seized. Over 100 individuals that
packets of suspected THC edibles or THC THC edibles were covered and approximately 9 ounces of marijuana were packaged in over 100 individual package containers or bags. And after the execution of that search
warrant, did there come a time when you conferred with the Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And uh through that conference, did uh the Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office
uh agree with you to charge Russell Brown and Russell Brown Jr. with um the enumerated offenses set forth on summons 2026002244. >> Objection calls for a hearsay answer.
This individual is not a member of the prosecutor's office. >> This is a relaxed proceeding. So I will rephrase my question. Did you speak with someone at the Atlanta County Prosecutor's Office? >> Subsequent to speaking with someone at the Atlanta County Prosecutor's Office, did you initiate those charges?
And um what how many charges are on that particular sum >> set forth in uh exhibit three? >> There are five. One is a >> Okay. And
>> Okay. Okay. And are any of them indictable offenses? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And how many of them are indictable offenses? >> Four. >> Okay. And um our indictable offenses are presented to the grand jury unless it's otherwise dismissed prior there too.
>> Yes. >> And um although this is on a summon and complaint um is there a codefendant also named Russell P. Brown? >> Yes ma'am. >> And how do you know the difference between Russell P. Brown and the other Russell P. Brown although they have the
same addresses? >> Okay. And um let me present to you that which has been marked as exhibit 4. And I'm going to ask that that excuse me with take a look at that document. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Is your name listed on that document?
>> Yes, it is. >> Are you the author of that complaint summon? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Is that a true and accurate representation of what it reports to be? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Move that into evidence. Is this the same summon and complaint as
the excuse me complaint summons as the one that you just reviewed? It >> is the same charges. Um it is one numeric difference. >> Okay. And that's exhibit four. What is the summon number on exhibit 4? >> 0102
S is in Sierra 2026 002243. >> Okay. And um the difference in the two people are the dates of birth that are set forth in the uh initial caption. Correct. >> Yes.
>> All right. All right. Um and did you just testify that these were the same charges as set forth in summoning 2244? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Is there anything different in either of these charges other than the date of birth and any other identifying
information? >> No ma'am. Did there come a time when Russell P. Brown, who was born in 1963, presented himself to the Pleasantville Police Department?
>> Objection. The Romans. Well, somebody was charged. If I may finish, at least counsel my objection on the record. I'd appreciate >> when somebody appears and is processed on a summon isn't relevant to this. There's an arrest. it's in the criminal
process. Your own prosector, excuse me, on confusing the two. Um, has said this is not going to be about a criminal proceeding. Yet, here we are in the middle of talking about a criminal proceeding. And you can imagine what the cross- examination may look like. But again, it's not relevant. When
somebody's arrested, how they're arrested, when they appear has no relevance to the question before you, which is very narrow. >> Okay? >> Was there unlawful coming? >> So, here's why it's relevant. Because specifically the ordinance says that the
temporary suspension followed by the revocation of hearing has to be premised on and arrest due to an indictable offense. and Sergeant um Eli Ellie has
already testified that both Russell Brown one and Russell Brown in 1963 were charged with indictable offenses. And so my second question before I was
interrupted was was Russell Brown summons ending in uh 2243, did he present himself to the police department? >> Yes, sir. >> And when he presented himself to the police department, was he processed? >> Yes, ma'am.
>> And what is processing mean? >> A fingerprint photograph. I'm linking that uh submission to >> And were you a photograph? And you fingerprint and you link that to the complaint. Is that affecting an arrest? >> Yes, ma'am.
>> And so, was Russell Brown, born in 1963, arrested? >> Yes. >> And he was arrest was he arrested for an indelible offense? Yes, sir. >> Have you had an opportunity to review the ordinance? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And um
and this is really just your professional opinion as a police officer. Not withstanding the fact that there was a suspicion of marijuana without a merchant license or Canada's license.
Do you believe that there is a basis for the violation of the municipal? >> Yes. >> And what would be that basis? >> The dishonesty. >> Excuse me. >> The dishonesty in the licensing. And that would be why
>> uh the licensing is alcohol is not relation. >> Okay. Now was there a money laundering charge in the complaint? >> Yes. >> And is money laundering a third degree or fourth degree defense?
>> It's a third degree. And um in the money is money laundering a kind of um fraud? Yes. And just to be clear, um was Mr. Brown
born 1943 and Mr. Brown born in 1963. Were they served with notice of these complaints? >> Uh they were provided to Mr. Brown when he turn.
>> I have no further questions at this time. Okay. Council president. >> Yes. >> Sergeant, I I I was proud. >> You said it right. Got it now.
>> Probably the only time I do at least I got it right once. Um let's talk about the money. What evidence of moneyaundering you have other than the fact that you seize money during switch turn? >> Objection. This isn't about evidence. This is about what the arrest is and
what the complaint is. That's all. And he's not going to he's not going to answer. You know why he's not going to answer? He'll answer any other questions you have in the narrow scope. I didn't go that far. I didn't open that door. And this is for your client's protection
as well as the prosecution of this matter. It speaks for itself. I did not even have him give his opinion. He read from the affidavit of probable cause >> and and >> which you have a copy of. So there's no deviation, there's no subjectivity.
>> I'm asking for a specific ruling on my objection. Is the council telling me if I cannot crossexamine this sergeant as it relates to the content of this probable cause statement. >> Before we go further, I need a I need a a ruling from the council. >> No, council is not going to give you a
ruling on that. I don't know how they're going to give you a ruling on that. You're asking them to you're asking them to opine on evidentiary matters that go to superior court which go to the grand
jury or are basically during an investigation. If you want to ask him how he wrote the report, if you want to ask him about the superior court judge who issued the the uh the the search warrant, but you can't ask him what proofs that he has other than that which is set
forth in the report. If it's in the report, he can answer the question. >> Again, my note as it relates to the conflict that your attorney finds herself in, I think >> there would be no conflict because he would be my witness no matter what my
position. The witnesses wouldn't change and he's the only one that I'm directing this to. >> Madame President, with your permission, I'll ask a series of questions. We'll see how it unfolds from here. So, sorry. Can I take it? You won't
answer my question as to what evidence of money laundering that you possess. >> Is that the answer to the question? >> I can read you off the problem. >> I'm not asking about the probable cause statement. You say there's ev there's money laundering. My question is what's the evidence of the moneyaundering? >> You can you can answer the question to
the extent that it comes from them. >> I was going to read it off that they have a problem pause which would actually answer your question >> which says basically you seize money. >> No, >> you asked him the question, let him answer. It says also debit card and credit card transactions were ran through the business. >> Where were they seized?
>> Excuse me sir. >> How were they seized? >> Sir, you're getting to the investigative matter and superior report. So >> I didn't write your problem statement, sir. You did. >> I was. >> So in your probable cause statement, you've just read to this council. You said there's evidence of debit and credit card statements. My question is
where on your affidavit on your on your inventory is there record of of debit and credit card purchases being taken? Can you just tell me where it is on on the inventory because I was provided that >> respect not answer that from a matter that's >> okay so you're done you're not going to
answer that question you refuse it >> right now yes >> okay let me ask you let's back up a little bit what was the date of the undercover file >> not going to answer that either >> and was any of the evidence that was submitted you have a lab report back
>> there when you properly request through a records department. They will gladly provide you with that. >> I pro I requested it of this of the federal solicit. >> What what does >> you have a copy of a lab report in your possession? >> What does the wait what does the
affidavit of probable cause say relative to a lab report? >> That's not the question in front of a witness. >> You asked him if he had a lab report. >> I'm asking him if he has a copy of a lab report, why wasn't it provided as part of the discovery? I don't have any
criminal discovery, nor did I ask for it, nor would I produce it in this civil local local hearing matter on an ordinance. This is not even in municipal court. And I'm pretty sure that under the
attorney general inter attorney general guidelines, they wouldn't even require it. You couldn't even get this on Oprah. Not yet. You can make a request as the attorney to get this the discovery. >> I did. I for the record I made a request to your solicitor for a copy of a police
enforcement. >> You made the the request for the purposes of this hearing. >> Yeah. >> And I am not empowered to give them to you no matter what my role would be here today. >> Okay. >> That goes through the prosecutor's office frankly and anything local you
can get from the police department. Have you provided a copy of the lab request and subsequent where first off what lab did you >> as state police >> as indicated New Jersey state? >> Okay. All right. And so you got a lab
request and a lab report back on the control. >> It's in the investigation. >> Okay. That's uh you sent a lab out for the stuff deceased on the 28th. >> Sir, it's in it's in those process. >> Oh, sorry. >> It's it's in the investigation. >> In the investigative process. So, as we
all sit here tonight, the charge is is that on May 28th, they acted in an illegal, unlawful manner or in a matter of constituting breach of the peace, right? And you've testified that it's a breach because it wasn't on their workplace.
That correct? >> I did not say this. >> You didn't say I misunderstood. >> Yes, you did. >> I thought council asked you what was the basis of your belief as it related to the violation of the ordinance. >> Dishonesty. >> Dishonesty. Okay. And the dishonesty is because they don't have it didn't have a a dispensary
license. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Um, are you familiar with the concept of preeemption? >> It's by way of state law. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Do you know whether they needed a merkantile license under the marijuana licensing law? >> Yes, sir. They did.
>> They did. >> Can I ask you how you know that? >> From my experience that over THC content a certain product, you need a cannabis dispensary license. So, as we sit here, you'll testify to what'sever by way of the word in your probable cause statement, but you won't
provide any testimony as to the underlying facts. Is that accurate? >> I will not, sir, because that's the matter. >> I'm just going to object to the term. >> Okay. >> So, I'm sorry. >> I'm finished.
>> Okay. Um, Sergeant, did you obtain an order from superior court to seize the assets of Russell Brown 1944 to 1943 and or hometown liquors? >> Objection. It's beyond the scope of the
original. It's beyond the scope. >> And so were the questions you were asking. So your objection is preserved for for whatever. >> Did you? >> Yes, that was approved by superior court also. >> Okay. and and the order of seizures was it affected? >> Yes.
>> Okay. And are those assets now frozen? >> Objection to the relevancy of this. >> It's all relevant because you are saying that you don't have any facts. Those are facts to support what he's saying about money laundering. You open the door for
money wandering. I didn't bring that up. I brought up the charge. You just brought up what facts do you have? And I just asked him whether a superior court judge ever provided an order, issued an order to seize assets or to freeze them
rather. And he indicated yes. Those are facts. Those are facts that go toward the breach of the merchant merkantile license. I don't even want to respond. I don't have any more questions. >> Thank you. I would ask that you stay close by just you know I'm not sure
whether or not you may need to do >> no >> okay so the city >> you want to hear our >> Oh yes Not sure where to start, but I think I'm
going to try to be short. You asked a lency to come in and defend against an apparition. You let someone testify to a report but not allow any questioning as it relates
to the substance behind it. There's a report from analysis from some undercover purchase that occurred at some point. We don't even know when. But that's not the basis. The basis is on May 28th.
All material that has absolutely nothing to do with this that the whole thing about money laundering and an order issued by the court. First off, we weren't provided by a copy of that by your prosecutor, but obviously she knew about it or she asked about it. We were provided copic.
My earlier observation to the governing body was that this was premature and it still is. You haven't heard any evidence. I recognize that some of you may say that well there's probable cause. I hate to think of any of us having to
stand before somebody and try to defend ourselves based on some probable cause statement without an opportunity to challenge the substance. It seems to be wrong from a due process perspective, let alone violation of other constitutional or civil rights.
This proceeding is premature. I understand what your ordinance says. I understand that everybody in connection with this matter acted in pursuit of that ordinance, but it doesn't change the fundamental nature that that ordinance challenges
logic in the concept of defense of due process. You may have I'll be the first person to stand here tonight and say to you, you may have a basis to take action. a jury conviction, a plea of guilty,
but even then it won't be necessary because, as I said before, under title 33 by operational law. Whoever owns that license will have to divest themselves because they will be criminally disqualified. You won't have to rely on your bits. It'll all be done
for you, as a matter of law, by the state's Division of Alcohol Beverage Control. this proceeding. I think you've you've seen it. You've experienced it today in the context of how this has been conducted.
The evidence that's been and I use that in a very broad sense that's been provided to you, but there's no substance to it because there's no ability to look behind it. How do I defend? How does anybody defend
themselves in that environment? That's why this proceeding is untitled in the context of the scheme of regulation. It ignores some of the aspects of preeemption the context of licensing and
we haven't raised that here. It's not really necessary to raise that. But my recommendation to you, my suggestion to you, my profer if you will on behalf of the
lency is you own you give them back their license at this point and everybody's on notice that somewhere down the road that license may not only be potentially in jeopardy but
that's I suggest you thing to do that in fact protects due process, protects civil and constitutional rights. Remember, everybody in this building, even Mr. Brown at this point, is cloaked
with that presumption of innocence. So, essentially what we're doing is well, we're taking a license to do business from someone on the prospect that maybe that person may be guilty, but we're going to just ignore the the protections of presumption of innocence.
Now, your your solicitor will stand up and say, "This isn't a criminal proceeding." None of that applies. But to ignore that is to ignore the practical reality of what it is you're doing. I don't think you need to do that.
Thank you. >> Thank you, council. Um, so I I agree with hometown liquors attorney relative to
due process. Everyone is entitled to it and the presumption of innocence until which time they are founded. It is a fundamental constitutional right and we cannot take it away. I would you know and and I feel for any
uh lency who has to appear before a body um and deal with these circumstances and yes he is also correct that I am going to tell you that that's not what this proceeding is it's not the criminal proceeding and the criminal proceeding is a very very high standard it is
beyond the reasonable doubt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is preponderance of the evidence more likely than not. And I can tell you that in as much as he hasn't been convicted and he may never be convicted and it is not my goal to
see him convicted, I have no opinion on it. My job is to simply present to you what the ordinance says and the witnesses. He had an opportunity to cross-examine them and he did. He had an opportunity to bring witnesses and he didn't. He had an opportunity to present
his own client. And you know why he didn't? Because he wants to afford his client the right to remain silent the same way that he tried to elicit information for the criminal defense from our client or from my client. So,
you know, or witness, I should say. You can't have it both ways. He could have presented a defense if he wanted to. He could have presented other witnesses. He chose not to. And we've really expanded this frankly beyond that which
it should be. And notwithstanding the fact that he hasn't been proven guilty and may never be. We don't know that. You shouldn't even be thinking about that. What you should be thinking about because it's not premature is that there
is always a balance between the rights of the state balanced against the rights of the individual. You cannot just have people in businesses running around willy-nilly opening up selling what they want to sell and even when it's a legal
contraband they've got a problem with the merkantile license. It's not always just that which you know at the end of the day you know there may be this huge indictable offense over them and you have to deal with them differently. But the ordinance was put in place
specifically. It didn't just say, "Oh, we're going to immediately suspend for anybody because they're selling uh potato chips and they said they were only going to sell socks." No, it's whether or not they have been arrested for an indictable offense. And
particularly this or the allegations, we can't just turn our heads to that. The allegations are such that someone could lose their life if it's true. And this body has an obligation to the health and welfare, to the safety of its citizens
to make sure that people are not just without being licensed to sell cannabis, opening up these shops. Now, maybe it'll turn out and it'll be oregano, but that's not your role. Your role is to go by that which a court has provided a
order to search the premises based on probable cause. Whether or not you believe that Sergeant Liatelli, whether he's credible, is he credible? Do you believe him? Do you believe the witness, Miss Stockton, and whether or
not she's credible? That's all it is. Is are they credible? Have you looked at the report? Do you look at the ordinance? What does the ordinance say? The ordinance isn't vague. It's not ambiguous. And it gives another shot at the apple because it says that the lency
can petition even under revocation this body to get the license back. So it's not necessarily finalizing forever. Now when they may do that that's up in the up in the air. I don't think that there's anything saying they couldn't do it next month. So this isn't about disenfranchising.
This isn't about dispossessing the business owner of an opportunity to make a living. This is about protecting the citizens of Pleasantville. And that's the fiduciary responsibility that this body has. And if you had every establishment there who was a liquor store or who was a candy store and they
were suspected to sell anything, whether it was drugs, whether they had guns, no matter what it was, if it if they were arrested for an indictable offense, you have an obligation. And that is the balance. It's not premature. You're not going to wait two years to
whe to whether or not there there there's a conviction or an acquitt or six months whether or not there's a no bill or an indictment and then let's say there's an indictment. They're still presumed innocent until which time there's a conviction or a dismissal.
Your responsibility is to look at the plain reading of the ordinance. the words are the plain reading are the plain meaning and they specifically set forth that if there's fraud, misrepresentation
or other dishonesty in the conduct of the licensed activity, it also goes on to say the immediate suspension notwithstanding the above provisions any activity at the license premises by the lency or any agent of the lency which
results in an arrest for an indictable offense or which the license premises shall be reasoned to immediately suspend pending a hearing before city council. And you have the power to do
three things. You can vacate that suspension. You can uphold the suspension for a a term certain or you can revoke it which would require them to come back and file a new license. It's not really a new
application, but for them to appear back before this body for a hearing to reinstate the revoked license, that is your job. That is what the ordinance says. There is no conflict in the presentation by your municipal attorney. There is no prosecutor
for the city of Pleasantville any longer. And when there were prosecutors, prosecutors by statute fall under the municipal attorney's office. So I'm asking you to make your decision whether you are going to deliberate private,
whether you deliberate openly. It's at your purview. Use the law. I am not going to tell you how you should decide. I will tell you what I believe the law requires. And I believe that we have met our burden. I
believe that my witnesses were credible. I believe that the documents speak for themselves. I believe that the court intervention when you're talking about orders uh search warrants when you're talking about uh seizure orders which I have not seen this is testimony that you know that the witness information the
witness has given me and by the way like any other civil proceeding and most criminal proceedings at the lower level the adversary actually has an opportunity off the record to ask some profered questions and they did not. I I
I I I never interrupt council during closing, but I'm going to do it right now. That last comment was absolutely inaccurate. No witness has an obligation to speak to counsel. I could approach anyone and say, "Would you like to talk to me?" And they have an absolute right,
unless they're subpoenaed and sitting on a stand, to tell me where I can go. To suggest that somehow I have an obligation or an opportunity to go and interview anybody based on the testimony I heard tonight would have been a feudal
act at least and recognized as such based upon what your solicitor emailed and provided to suggest somehow or other that council had an obligation to go ask the sergeant Illi
knew or what he was going to testify to is not a part of the law and is certainly not a part of this proceeding. >> So this solicitor is not a witness. This solicitor and and her emails are not in
evidence nor shall they be. And there are circumstances and hearings where in the presence including municipal court in the presence of the other party whether it's the prosecutor or the presenting
attorney the adversary attorney can ask for a proper of what the witnesses will testify to and that is absolutely the law. Be that as it may, I would ask this body
to make a decision. And I recommend that the license be revoked until which time a new application or a new a motion is made for it to be recurred. The recurve standard is clear and convincing evidence. I don't believe that there's
any room or any ambiguity. I believe that uh the city through this office has sustained its burden because it's only more reasonable, excuse me, more likely than not. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes.
have an ant. >> You don't have >> No, >> I didn't even I didn't think that was an issue. All right, we're finished deliberating. Madam clerk, >> um, next is resolution 121 and
resolution for Birken revoking the Burktown license of hometown liquor store. >> I have a motion. >> Motion. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Kabona. >> Yes. >> Olders. >> Yes.
>> Bettis. >> Yes. Gibson, >> yes. >> Thomas, >> yes. >> With that being said, resolution 121 revoking the work license for hometown liquor store has been approved. >> I'm sorry.
>> Could I have a copy? >> Yes. Thank you. I see you sir. Thank you. You're welcome. >> I thank you for your purchase. >> I don't want to walk out. >> Have a second. >> All in favor? >> Good night, everyone. >> Mr. Walls, do you have a second?
>> Mr. Walls, do you have a second? Um, we are having